ORDER : G.R. Moolchandani, J. Validity of the order dated 01.02.2016 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jodhpur Bench, in O.A. No. 290/00381/14 has been assailed, by which Central Administrative Tribunal has allowed O.A. of the respondent, directing petitioners to consider his candidature for compassionate appointment within three months from the date of receipt of the order impugned. 2. Factual matrix of the case reveals that respondent Sanjay Singh submitted an application before the appellants for grant of employment under the Provisions of Compassionate Appointment Rules, in place of his deceased father late Sh. Suresh Singh but the same was declined vide letter No.641-E/E1 G/ Comm.clerk/Sanjay/Jodh./2014/13 dated 05.08.2014 disclosing therein that a case Under Section 13 of the R.P.G.O. at P.S. Ratanada was informed to have been lodged, which culminated with a fine of Rs. 100/- in case no. 11/08.01.2011 and the said information was withheld, from disclosing under para 12 (a) (b) (c ) (d) (e) (f), while applying for the same. The respondent assailed validity of the same before Central Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed by the impugned order dated 01.02.2016. 3. Heard rival contentions of both the sides, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order impugn is not sustainable is the eye of Law because learned Central Administrative Tribunal has committed error in passing the impugn order, in fact, respondent concealed factum of his conviction, while submitting application for consideration of his candidature, on the basis of compassionate grounds and did not disclose this vital information under Column 12 of the application form, which was a material concealment and during the course of Police verification, petitioner-Department was informed by the verifying Police Authority that the respondent-applicant was convicted under Section 13 of the R.P.G.O. and a fine of Rs. 100/- was imposed upon him but the petitioner-applicant did not disclose this material information, while submitting the application, hence his candidature was found unworthy to be considered, so under the circumstances the petitioners cannot be directed to consider the candidature of such applicant for employment and Central Administrative Tribunal has erroneously passed order impugn, which may be set aside, reliance has also been made on the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Singh vs. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the impugn order does not suffer from any infirmity because respondent-applicant is a young man and has never remained indulged in any criminal activity, he was not even aware about any alleged conviction because his counsel never informed him that he has been held guilty by criminal Court, he just tendered fee to his counsel and was under impression that the same was towards the expenses and fee of the counsel, so he cannot be saddled with any such alleged intention or liability to which he was even not aware of, hence his candidature is worthy for consideration under the Provisions of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules 1996 and there is no error in the order impugn, referring Para 35 to 38 of the Judgment of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India, (Supra) Learned counsel has contended that the alleged offence is trivial in nature, which is to be ignored, so the writ petition suffers merit, hence, it be dismissed. 4. Heard both the counsels and perused the record and the judgment impugn. 5. Column 12 Sub-clause 1 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) of the Application-form relates to the information purported to be submitted to the proposed employer by the aspirant-candidate regarding his/her eventual arrest, custody, bail, conviction, charge, fine, and column 12 Sub-clause (2) deals with condition, requiring to furnish full details of the aforesaid, in case if the replies to the said interrogatories result in “positive”, and the answers furnished by the applicant against these Columns, have been replied in “negative” vide application dated 12.06.2014, seeking appointment. Communication/letter No.641/E1G/Comm.Clerk/Sanjay/Jodh./ 2014/13 dated 05.08.2014 sent by petitioner to the respondent contains that case NO.11/08.01.2011 under Section 13 of the R.P.G.O. P.S. Ratanada being case No.6/22.01.2013 was found registered against the applicant/respondent and vide order dated 01/03/2011 a fine of Rs.100/- was imposed upon the applicant, and while submitting application and furnishing information under para 12, the same were not disclosed by the respondent-applicant and facts were furnished incorrectly in order to conceal the same, hence, the process relating to compassionate appointment was held not to be possible. 6. 6. Factual aspect of the case reveals that the applicant/respondent has not been selected for compassionate appointment, but his candidature was found not fit to be considered because of non-disclosure of true facts, while submitting application, alleged offence u/s 13 of R.P.G.O. relates to a bygone period, being trivial, attracted fiscal fine, which was imposed in a summery way. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Police & Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar, 2011 DNJ (SC) 710 has examined the same in detail and while affirming the findings arrived at by Delhi High Court held that approach of a court should be to condone minor indiscretions instead of branding him as a criminal for his entire life”, The Court has also observed that at the young age people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned, after all, youth will be youth, they are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people, our approach, therefore, should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for rest of their lives. Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the unreported decision in Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., has held that what was required to be considered by the appointing authority was to satisfy himself as to the suitability of the applicant to the post based on the nature of crime alleged against the applicant and It was held: “9. The order dated 18.07.2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had been sent along with the report dated 15.01.2007 of the Jaswant Nagar Police Station to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, but it appears from the order dated 08.08.2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, that he has not gone into the question as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to service or to the post of constable in which he was appointed and he has only held that the selection of the appellant was illegal and irregular because he did not furnish in his affidavit in the proforma of verification roll that a criminal case has been registered against him. As has been stated in the instructions in the Government Order dated 28.04.1958, it was the duty of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, as the appointing authority, to satisfy himself on the point as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of a constable, with reference to the nature of suppression and nature of the criminal case. Instead of considering whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of male constable, the appointing authority has mechanically held that his selection was irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished an affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the time of recruitment. Ultimately the appointing authority was directed to take back the applicant without grant of any back wages”. 8. Hon’ble The Supreme Court, while deciding a similar issue in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 has observed in paras:- “35. Suppression of 'material' information presupposes that what is suppressed that 'matters' not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases. 36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects. 38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted: 38.4.1. 38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted: 38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as ‘shouting slogans’ at young age or for a ‘petty offence’ which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse”. 9. Of course, Gambling for high stakes is vulnerable, mythological episode of Mahabharat discloses, tyranny of such indulgence, but we have seen that such a malady is prevalent in our society even on few festivities thus, practice of gambling often found in existence and youth go astray and often fell prey to such evils, though inexcusable, but seldom indulgence may not be termed in a ruthless way and nature of an isolated indulgence may not be scanned as serious as to perish livelihood opportunities and lives of the youth. 10. Our Supreme Court has remained sensitive towards this as well, so, in para 38.4.1 in Avtar Singh’s Case (Supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that for a trivial offence, akin to ‘shouting slogans’, would not render an incumbent unfit for post in question and it has also been observed that the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of facts of false information by condoning the lapse and in para 36, it has also been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that what yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts, which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects. 11. In view of the discussions dwelt above, we, are of the view that considering the nature of the infraction involved, it will be more appropriate to consider the candidature of the respondent-applicant afresh after taking into account all the aspects stated above, within two months from the date of order. 11. In view of the discussions dwelt above, we, are of the view that considering the nature of the infraction involved, it will be more appropriate to consider the candidature of the respondent-applicant afresh after taking into account all the aspects stated above, within two months from the date of order. The writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.